RE: WPWG Priorities

Thanks Zach. As we begin working through issues in our initial experimental implementation<> these are basically the same topics we’re wrestling with and want to lock on.

There are a few issues that follow on after these in our list such as locking on the address fields (it’s clear that there is no perfect solution but we need to pick something and try it out). But this list is the highest priority for us first.

Once we get past these we think that it will make it easier to get more experience to help us shape the API is it relates to possible different payment methods.



From: Zach Koch []
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 5:16 PM
To: Payments WG <>
Subject: WPWG Priorities

Hi Chairs and WG Members -

Note: I'm speaking here as a member of the WG, not as an editor.

Given that we've now reached FPWD, I want to propose we start focusing on resolving issues that will allow us to start shipping experimental implementations of the API on the web platform. This means focusing on issues that affect the fundamental shape or interaction model of the API. By focusing on a key set of issues, we can hopefully prevent the case where different, incompatible versions of the API are being shipped.

To that end, I've identified the following short list of issues as ones I think we should focus on getting consensus around, hopefully starting on tomorrow's call:

1.) Payment Method Identifiers (#11<>) - This is at the top of the list for me. We need to make sure merchants can declare payment methods in a way that is consistent across implementations. We have a few proposals on the table, but I think it's complex enough that it will merit time on a call (or the full call) to move forward.

2.) Finalizing how "total" is passed in (#18<>)

3.) Complete() and its accepted values (#17<>, #129<>)

4.) Support for collection of email and phone (#1<>, PR #65<>) - It seems like we're circling around consensus here, so discussion on a call might help to quickly resolve. At the very least, I'd like to resolve how we can get "email" in.

This is not to say that other issues the group has highlighted are not important (e.g. registration), and I very much hope that discussion of those continues on Github in parallel. But given that we only have one opportunity per week to discuss live, I'd like to start making concrete progress on the above issues.



Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 03:20:52 UTC